HUBILUB's GotY

[SonicKoala]

How good they actually were is a matter of opinion, what you questioned in your previous post was their significance, and in that category, the Beatles are the single most influential band in the history of music, and to suggest that they aren't is stupid and makes you look alarmingly ignorant of musical history.

What I said was:

the incredible over-rating of The Beatles (something that we've discussed before I think) and the union of these two money>quality product etc.

and at most contentious

Their biggest significance was in embracing modern hype and money making, effectively kicking off the modern pop machine with a template that hadn't been bettered 'improved' upon until reality TV came along and made 'stars' (and shit loads of money) out of even less creative and interesting people.

which in no way denies their advances in recording techniques or the bullshit credit you give them for birthing the LP, but hey, why bother reading what I write when you can just as easily act the fanboy and spout irrelevant rubbish to try to prove how great The Beatles were.
OT:

Boys, boys, there's no need to argue! Instead of doing this, why don't you tell me your choices for GotY? I'd love to hear them.

Sorry for derailing, Hubi, I just can't let a fanboy stand. My favourite game I played for the first time this year was Mirror's Edge, and since I played it on PC I guess it just slips into contention (released in January a little while after the consoles). It looks likely that had AssCreed II come out in time (again, for the PC) it would have probably taken my vote, though without having played it properly, I get the impression I'm going to like it less than the first game (less of a surprise, more annoying storyline).

They did birth the LP, and you're suggesting that their advances in recording and musical techniques takes a backseat to their embracement of "modern hype and money making", which you called in that very post their "biggest significance" - that isn't their biggest significance, that's bullshit. If my assessment that they birthed the LP is "bullshit", then tell me who did. I'm not suggesting they were the first band to release an LP, what I'm saying is they were the first band to treat the LP as an artistic medium, rather than just a shell in which to place one or two catchy singles.

 

[Cherry Cola]

My GotY would probably be Uncharted 2, as I've had more fun with that game than I have any other recently released game. That being said, I have yet to play Assassin's Creed 2 or Dragon Age: Origins, both of which I plan to buy soon. Regardless, I still think Uncharted 2 would be hard to top.

Ah yes, Uncharted 2 was a mighty experience. AC2 can't touch it in my opinion, seeing as how it's not only less exciting than the very cinematic Uncharted, but also has a much worse story. I also felt that Uncharted 2's platforming bits where better, mostly because AC2's platforming only consisted of "Hold down R1 and X and then just point to where you want to go".

I was really chocked when I played AC2. Before I bought it I had played MW2 and Uncharted 2 for a while, both of them having stunning visuals and great character models. Then comes AC2, and it just looks hilariously bad in comparison. It's not bad by any means, the graphics are good, but some of the character models, especially their faces... It's just laughable compared to Uncharted 2.

 

[Bassman_2]

How I enjoyed Beatles Rock Band so, getting my to play their songs, but alas, it ain't my goty. I have to give it to that there ol' Batman game. Cuz it's Batman.

 

[SonicKoala]

They did birth the LP, and you're suggesting that their advances in recording and musical techniques takes a backseat to their embracement of "modern hype and money making", which you called in that very post their "biggest significance" - that isn't their biggest significance, that's bullshit. If my assessment that they birthed the LP is "bullshit", then tell me who did. I'm not suggesting they were the first band to release an LP, what I'm saying is they were the first band to treat the LP as an artistic medium, rather than just a shell in which to place one or two catchy singles.

I'd consider the Nutcracker Suite, and to a less obviously connected extent, most classical music suites as being the first proper albums - ones that often had a lot less filler than The Beatles' albums. I'm afraid that I don't give a shit that you think their biggest significance was their innovation musically or technically (or the music video to prevent them needing to appear live), I think the most influential thing that they did was the Beatlemania fad, a system that has allowed mediocre and even terrible 'artists' to blossom just because of their popularity. In other words, celebrity over merit. They still embody this today. And if they were so damn good, Beatles fans wouldn't have to keep going on about how 'important' they were, they would just let the music speak for itself. I'm done talking to you, you're derailing this thread.

Well, I don't see how you could possibly consider the Nutcracker suite the first proper album as it was written 56 years before the invention of the LP, but I won't press that point. Second, you may consider the Beatles mediocre, but that doesn't change the fact that their music has managed to transcend over 40 years of dynamic cultural and musical shifts and still retain signifiance. Music that was so terribly "mediocre", as you put it, would not be able to do that. As for your "fans shouldn't have to go on about how important etc." argument, fans of The Beatles praise them because that's what fans of ANY band do - when people love a band's music, they praise it - the only reason you hear so much praise for the Beatles is because a SHIT LOAD of people really like The Beatles. It's no different than praise for any other band - the Beatles just happen to have considerably more fans than most other bands.

And you can "think" that their biggest signifiance was their extreme popularity and "Beatlemania", and that they were only popular because of their exposure, but that doesn't change the fact that you're very, VERY wrong. The Beatles were true musicians who were interested in writing music, not making money, and their later albums reflect that. Sure, perhaps they were one of the first examples of extreme commercialisation in music, but they also happened to be damn good song writers, and if that weren't the case, people would not be listening to their music today, 40 years past their prime. Seriously, look at the pop icons of the 90s - groups like Nsync or the Backstreet Boys; nobody gives a SHIT about them anymore, and it's been little more than a decade since their time in the spotlight. The music of The Beatles had a profound impact on millions of people around the world; their influence was not only musical, but cultural as well - their music defined the 60s, and let's not forget the impact it had on youth in the former Soviet Union. I'm sorry, but music that is "mediocre" could not achieve something of this magnitude. And please, don't bother calling me a fanboy, as it's completely inaccurate. Everything I've said so far has been backed up by rational explanation - I'm not the biggest fan of The Beatles, to be perfectly honest, but denying their importance is blatant idiocy.

And really, I'm derailing the thread? The very first post you made was simply an attack on both The Beatles and Guitar Hero, you didn't even bother to name your GotY, so please, don't suggest that I'm the cause of this derailment, it's pathetic. YOU were the one who started this.

 

[SonicKoala]

blah blah blah I'm a fanboy but I won't admit it blah blah blah

I believe that there was a 4 disc version of it released some time in the 1900s? Sorry that it isn't technically on one disc, but that doesn't make it not an album. Incidentally, it was brave of you to go for the Backstreet Boys or N'Sync as targets from the 90s, rather than a band like Nirvana (who I think are similarly over-rated to The Beatles) who still have massive followings. Disagreeing and explaining why you disagree with the OP cannot be considered derailing. Like I said before (though I mean it this time), I'm done talking to you. If you could only comprehend the subjectivism that you're trying to pass of as undeniable fact you'd realise how much of a fanboy you really are. And if you could comprehend common English, you'd realise I wasn't saying that they weren't important, I was saying that their greatest significance was in commercialism. Yawn. Bored of you now.
Bye.

Wow, great response, just makes you look like even more of an idiot. And please, your very first comment that started this whole discussion was entirely subjective - there is NOTHING more subjective than saying a band is overrated. On the other hand, the influence of the Beatles, both musically and culturally, is a FACT. I'm sorry, but completely changing the face of popular music and influencing millions of people worldwide is considerably more significant than their commercial impact which really only re-emerged in the 90s. And please, The Beatles were simply an EXAMPLE of commercialisation - it's not like record companies got the idea to make money off of musicians from the Beatles. That's bullshit, plenty of artists in the 50s were exploited simply for monetary gain by record companies, so don't suggest that the Beatles started this.

 

[SonicKoala]

Wow, great response, just makes you look like even more of an idiot. And please, your very first comment that started this whole discussion was entirely subjective - there is NOTHING more subjective than saying a band is overrated. On the other hand, the influence of the Beatles, both musically and culturally, is a FACT. I'm sorry, but completely changing the face of popular music and influencing millions of people worldwide is considerably more significant than their commercial impact which really only re-emerged in the 90s. And please, The Beatles were simply an EXAMPLE of commercialisation - it's not like record companies got the idea to make money off of musicians from the Beatles. That's bullshit, plenty of artists in the 50s were exploited simply for monetary gain by record companies, so don't suggest that the Beatles started this.

I'm sorry Hubi, he keeps dragging me back!

Yeah, except I didn't go around trying to force my opinion on someone else, or worse yet present it as a fact. This is the last I'll write on the subject, tell you what, if you don't post about it again either, you win. I'll admit The Beatles made amazing music and innovated more than any other artist ever, made the most important contribution to music ever, and if it wasn't for them we'd all be listening to morse code and killing ourselves. Oh yeah, and your arguing skills are the best I've ever seen, both on the internet and in real life. You are very smart. Congratulations.

I'm not trying to present my opinion as fact, I'm trying to present the influence and impact of the Beatles as fact - they are the single most influential band in musical history, and are certaintly one of the most innovative (though i wouldn't quite say they are THE most innovative); I'm glad you finally realise that - see, isn't knowledge great? I think you're statement that we'd all be listening to morse code and killing ourselves is a bit harsh, but oh well, no need to press that point, no sir. As for my "arguing skills", I'll admit they aren't the greatest, but hey, they get me by. I appreciate your praise, it will not be forgotten.

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

The only new game I've played this year is Dragon Age. Good thing, too, because even my loaner copy of Fallout 3 is jealous of the amount of time I've sunk into it, and am I even finished with my first playthrough yet? Of course not.

Still, I wouldn't still be playing it if I didn't enjoy it, so there you are.

 

[SonicKoala]

I'm not trying to present my opinion as fact, I'm trying to present the influence and impact of the Beatles as fact - they are the single most influential band in musical history, and are certaintly one of the most innovative (though i wouldn't quite say they are THE most innovative); I'm glad you finally realise that - see, isn't knowledge great? I think you're statement that we'd all be listening to morse code and killing ourselves is a bit harsh, but oh well, no need to press that point, no sir. As for my "arguing skills", I'll admit they aren't the greatest, but hey, they get me by. I appreciate your praise, it will not be forgotten.

So I guess when I wrote in my replies

Their biggest significance was in embracing modern hype

(my opinion of their greatest significance, not denying other ways in which they were significant)
and

The fact they innovated with recording techniques and musical techniques

and

no way denies their advances in recording techniques or the bullshit credit you give them for birthing the LP, but hey, why bother reading what I write when you can just as easily act the fanboy and spout irrelevant rubbish to try to prove how great The Beatles were

(pointing out that I hadn't actually denied their importance, and stating my opinion that they didn't kick off the album)
and

I'm afraid that I don't give a shit that you think their biggest significance was their innovation musically or technically (or the music video to prevent them needing to appear live), I think the most influential thing that they did was the Beatlemania fad

(again recognising that there is a disparity of opinions as to what was most important about the legacy of The Beatles and stating my opinion on the subject)
it wasn't clear enough for you that I don't deny they had great influence, and I just happen to think that their greatest influence was different to what you think was their greatest influence. Given that we seem to be agreed that they were influential in all of the categories we've talked about, can you now, finally see that what we have here is a difference of opinion?

Since you didn't let it go, you don't get what I dangled in front of you before.

Stating that the Beatles biggest significance was their "embracement of modern hype" (which doesn't really make sense, but what I'm assuming you're saying is that they were one of the first big bands to be heavily commercialized, which is only true in a sense, because they WEREN'T the first artist to be commercialized) is more significant than their influence on music and culture is not a matter of opinion, that's blatantly illogical. Completely changing popular music, giving new vitality to an artistic medium (the LP) and having profound cultural impacts around the world is far more significant than this commercialisation you keep rambling on about which DIDN'T start with The Beatles.

And please, I don't need the bullshit you "dangled in front of me". Funny how you continue to respond to me despite the fact that you have repeatedly claimed that you're "done with me". The only area in which we have a difference of opinion is our respective like and dislike of The Beatles music. The other area, the influence vs. commercialisation argument and the significance of those two categories, is not a matter of opinion - It is a matter of you being wrong.

 

[SonicKoala]

Stating that the Beatles biggest significance was their "embracement of modern hype" (which doesn't really make sense, but what I'm assuming you're saying is that they were one of the first big bands to be heavily commercialized, which is only true in a sense, because they WEREN'T the first artist to be commercialized) is more significant than their influence on music and culture is not a matter of opinion, that's blatantly illogical. Completely changing popular music, giving new vitality to an artistic medium (the LP) and having profound cultural impacts around the world is far more significant than this commercialisation you keep rambling on about which DIDN'T start with The Beatles.

And please, I don't need the bullshit you "dangled in front of me". Funny how you continue to respond to me despite the fact that you have repeatedly claimed that you're "done with me". The only area in which we have a difference of opinion is our respective like and dislike of The Beatles music. The other area, the influence vs. commercialisation argument and the significance of those two categories, is not a matter of opinion - It is a matter of you being wrong.

It is funny how I do keep responding. It is actually really annoying me, but I can't leave it untouched. Am I... feeding a troll?! FUCK. Well, this is my last post to FOR SURE. I'm going to go throw up and watch babies crawl along the ceiling. I see there's no reasoning to be done with you. If you can't see that picking out which of a range of large influences was the most important is a subjective question, then that's your loss. Have a nice life, and please don't try to bully people into agreeing with you by saying 'WHAT I THINK IS FACT!!!!111 U R JUST RONG!' in future, it isn't very nice, and it isn't very mature. If you do want to persuade someone, try presenting some argued reasoned about the relative merits of claims to importance (for example) of different influences, and then state your case for why you think one or another or a third is the most important, and why you think the others are less so. You'll find this will help you with your essay writing as well. Now, hopefully for the last time, goodbye.

Present some argued reason - you mean how you NEVER did with your claim that The Beatles had an influence on the shallow way that the music industry conducts itself today? See, the reason I continue to plead that The Beatles influence and innovation is far more significant is because of all the positives that resulted from this influence - without The Beatles (as I said before), we would be without some fantastic artists and musicians today. Hell, ask almost ANY band that has recorded within the last 40 years, and odds are they are going to site the Beatles as being a significant influence, either on there particular brand of music, or as a gateway into music itself. Without The Beatles, who knows how long it would have taken for the LP to become a significant artistic medium? These are direct correlations I'm making, as opposed to the incredibly vague one you continue to argue (quite meagrely, I must say) that the Beatles started this notion of artists becoming popular based on something other than artistic talent - the problem I have with this argument is that, for one, in the case of the Beatles, it simply doesn't apply (that's an subjective point, granted), and two, this had already started BEFORE the Beatles came along.

What I'm saying is there were many other factors which contributed to the commercialisation of the industry outside of the Beatles - on the other hand, the influence of the Beatles, their contributions to music as a whole, and their cultural impact which was felt worldwide was a DIRECT RESULT of their music. Not to mention, the influence they've had on music continues to be felt to this day - how is this possibly less significant than this vague commercialisation you keep ranting on about which wasn't even that prevalent up until the late 1980s and 1990s, and was NOT a direct result of the Beatles?

Really, your contributions to this discussion keep getting weaker and weaker. You have NEVER backed up YOUR point with any sort of reason. Seriously, how is inspiring thousands of young musicians, giving new vitality to an artistic medium, and having profound cultural impacts on millions of people around the world LESS significant than this commercialisation you keep talking about (which, as I will say once again, was NOT a direct result of the Beatles and had already started BEFORE they became popular)? You keep trying to make yourself come off as the voice of reason, when in fact you haven't done any reasoning whatsoever. Sorry, but I refuse to take advice from someone who has demonstrated nothing but laughable incompetence in arguing their point.